Wass Tingsmit cites the Supreme Administrative Court's order, warning Dr. Sorn to suspend his duties to prevent further legal complications and risk of criminal liability.
On 4 Sep 2026, Wass Tingsmit, an independent scholar, posted on Facebook about major news in administrative law and telecommunications regulation. The Supreme Administrative Court issued Order No. 952/2569 dated 31 Aug 2026 (read by the Central Administrative Court on 2 Sep 2026), reversing the lower court's decision and accepting the lawsuit filed by Dr. Sorn Boonbaichayapruk for consideration, while also ordering a review of his request for a stay of enforcement.
According to the Supreme Administrative Court's order, the selection committee is classified as a "state official." The NBTC selection committee is an entity exercising legal authority to issue orders or resolutions directly affecting individuals' rights, thus qualifying as "state officials" under Section 3 of the Administrative Court Act B.E. 2542 (1999).
Dr. Sorn filed suit claiming that the selection committee exercised power under the Act on Frequency Allocation and Regulation of Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications B.E. 2553 (2010) to issue Decision No. 1/2569 dated 21 July 2026, unlawfully determining his disqualifications as NBTC Chair. This constitutes a dispute over unlawful state official actions under Section 9(1)(1) of the Administrative Court Act.
Effect of the decision on performance of duties
• The selection committee, citing Section 15/1 of the NBTC Act, ruled that Dr. Sorn's failure to resign or cease professional activities (under Section 8 (1), (2), or (3)) constitutes automatic forfeiture of rights under Section 18.
• The law requires the selection committee to recruit new NBTC members, barring Dr. Sorn from reapplying. The committee's ruling thus causes Dr. Sorn to lose his NBTC membership under Section 20(1)(5).
• Consequently, Dr. Sorn cannot continue to serve as NBTC Chair according to amended Section 20(3).
Intent to maintain continuity
The law allows remaining members to continue serving, with the NBTC comprising those members, provided the number does not fall below four. This ensures uninterrupted public services related to broadcasting and telecommunications operations.
The decision constitutes an "administrative order"
• The selection committee's Decision No. 1/2569 dated 21 July 2026 affects Dr. Sorn's status or rights, thus qualifying as an "administrative order" under Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996).
• Dr. Sorn is therefore aggrieved or potentially so, unable to avoid the harm resulting from the selection committee's action.
• Remedying this harm requires a court order revoking the committee's decision (Section 72(1)(1) of the Administrative Court Act). Dr. Sorn is thus entitled to sue in the administrative court (Section 42(1)). His appeal is valid.
No need to seek remedy before filing suit
• Section 15/1(1) of the amended NBTC Act establishes the selection committee's decision as final. The committee informed Dr. Sorn of his right to file suit in administrative court (per Section 50 of the Administrative Court Act). Therefore, he need not seek prior remedy before suing (Section 42(2)).
• Dr. Sorn was notified of Decision No. 1/2569 on 22 July 2026, marking the date he knew or should have known the cause for action.
• He must file suit within 90 days of that date, by 20 Oct 2026. Dr. Sorn filed this suit on 3 Aug 2026 in the lower administrative court, within the legally prescribed period (Section 49).
Supreme Administrative Court order
• The Supreme Administrative Court disagreed with the lower court's dismissal and removal of the case from its docket.
• It therefore issued an order "Reversing the lower court's order to accept the plaintiff's lawsuit for consideration and granting further orders on the plaintiff's requests for provisional measures before the case is adjudicated."
Summary of the Supreme Administrative Court's order
Wass explained that at this stage, the Supreme Administrative Court has not ruled on whether Dr. Sorn is truly disqualified under Section 8(2), nor on the legality of the selection committee's decision (which remains the Central Administrative Court's responsibility). The court only ruled on "standing to sue," recognizing the decision's direct impact on the plaintiff's status, thus qualifying it as an administrative order and granting Dr. Sorn the right to file suit without waiting for removal from office.
The Supreme Administrative Court did not explicitly state that the decision is merely an "internal opinion" within the organization. However, by classifying it as an "administrative order" affecting the plaintiff's rights or duties, the court implies that it is not merely an internal advisory or non-binding action without legal effect on Dr. Sorn.
Warning Dr. Sorn to suspend duties
Wass further stated that although the Supreme Administrative Court's order opens the door to judicial review of the administrative decision's legality, from the perspectives of rule of law and good governance, there are critical considerations regarding Dr. Sorn's role as NBTC Chair in meetings from 3 September 2026 onward:
• Legal risk: While Decision No. 1/2569 remains effective administratively, Dr. Sorn's insistence on exercising duties or presiding over meetings may lead to legal challenges to the validity of resolutions or orders issued during this period, including potential criminal liability.
• Graceful solution: Wass recommends Dr. Sorn suspend his duties as NBTC Chair starting from the 3 September 2026 meeting until the Central Administrative Court issues a ruling on his request for a stay of enforcement. This demonstrates public responsibility and preserves the stability of the national regulatory organization. Remaining commissioners should proceed with resolving over 170 pending agenda items smoothly to prevent further national harm.